The Instigator
Sunfire315
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MagicAintReal
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Does God Exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
MagicAintReal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/7/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 460 times Debate No: 80628
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Sunfire315

Pro

The objector must show reasons why God does not exist. I must show reasons why He does exist. No shirking the burden of proof here, we both must bear it equally, so as to keep the discussion 2-sided. I can bear the burden of proof. It is just utterly pointless if the opponent does not argue.
MagicAintReal

Con

Thanks Pro for this debate.

Since no definition for god was provided, I'll supply Google's definition of god:

god - the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
https://www.google.com...

I reject the claim that god exists, because no god has been demonstrated physically, contingent on physical reality, or logically.
Since there has been no demonstration for god, the demonstration cannot be replicated or used to make accurate predictions about the nature of this creator of the universe; there's no reason to believe that "god exists" is true.

Furthermore, the origins of our universe do not require/allow for a creator, thus no god is needed.

Our universe has a zero total energy, because the spatial curvature throughout the universe is zero.
All of the positive energy (+matter) is cancelled out by all of the negative energy (-gravity) in our universe so that the total energy of the universe is in fact zero.
http://astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org...

As a set, matter and gravity would look like [+matter, -gravity] = 0.
So, without a big bang, matter and gravity are at [+0,-0] = 0
There is no matter or gravity to speak of and of course the total energy is 0.
In this zero energy state, there is no space/time/matter/energy/gravity...nothing.

How do we know what this nothing is?
In our universe of space and matter, when you strip "something" of particles, radiation, and energy, you are left with nothing but empty space; this empty space is full of quantum fluctuations.

Quantum fluctuations are sub nuclear particles existing and being annihilated by antiparticles, and the forces between these sub nuclear particles fluctuate as well.
This is what nothing is.
http://scholarsresearchlibrary.com...

But the sub nuclear particles are something, right?
Nope.
They never statively exist; they exist and don't exist at the same instant, and it is this fluctuation that makes up nothing.
There is no "nothing" without these fluctuations, period.
What is nothing?
It is a state of fluctuating sub nuclear particles and their forces called quantum fluctuations.
https://www.youtube.com...

That link is a great video for explaining nothing = quantum fluctuations.

So, when there was no space or time at [+0,-0] = 0, there were quantum fluctuations where space and time fluctuated in and out of existence with the sub nuclear particles and their forces.
The zero energy [+0,-0] = 0 quantum fluctuations are an unstable state, because of the constant fluctuating of these sub nuclear particles.

So...

These fluctuations, nothing, are so unstable that energy is guaranteed to be expressed from these quantum fluctuations.
Unstable [+0,-0] = 0 --> The Big Bang [+1,-1] = 0
At the big bang, we have (+1) some matter and (-1) some gravity, which now allows for stative space and time.
The universe expands [+10,-10] = 0
Inflation accelerates [+100000,-100000] = 0

So from zero energy quantum fluctuations [+0,-0], there was the big bang [+1,-1] = 0
Something [+1,-1] from nothing [+0,-0].

The big bang left cosmic microwave background radiation behind.
With the right radio telescope, even you can see that the space between the stars above us isn't just black space, it's filled with microwave radiation.
http://aether.lbl.gov...

NASA has measured it with an anisotropy probe located on a space shuttle called WMAP.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...

The radiation is basically uniform except for minor thermal variations proportional to the variations we've measured in quantum fluctuations.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...

So we know that from quantum fluctuations the Big Bang was expressed, not created, thus there is no creator of the universe, because there was no creation; creation is a temporal concept that requires time, and at [+0,-0] there is no space or time; there was no time for creation to happen.

There is no need to infer a god to explain our universe's origins, and it is nonsensical to talk about a temporal concept like creation without time; I argue a creator of the universe is therefore also nonsensical.

I reject the claim that god exists, because no god has been demonstrated physically, contingent on physical reality, or logically, and there is no need to infer a creator of the universe.

On to Pro...
Debate Round No. 1
Sunfire315

Pro

Sunfire315 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Sunfire315

Pro

Our universe has a zero total energy, because the spatial curvature throughout the universe is zero.
All of the positive energy (+matter) is cancelled out by all of the negative energy (-gravity) in our universe so that the total energy of the universe is in fact zero.

The difference between gods and God is a massive one. gods, (little g), are finite in power and knowledge, and morally imperfect. God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and transcendent. It would be like comparing a million to infinity.


If God were contingent upon physical reality, he would not be God, as then he would just another 'god'.

Leibnizian Cosmological argument:
1) anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the neccesity of its own nature or in an external cause.
(even in the quantum vacuum this is the case, for the particles come into being by virtue of the qualities of empty space. without empty space there is still)
2) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.(The cause of the universe must be something totally outside the universe, otherwise it would be a self-caused cause, which is illogical.) A timeless, spaceless, immaterial being which is incredibly powerful in virtue of creating the universe. This being is also plausibly personal, as their are only 2 ontological categories which fit this description: abstract objects like a number, or else a disembodied mind. but an abstract number is causally effete, it can't do anything. Therefore you are left with an incredibly powerful, spaceless, immaterial, timeless, personal being. God)
3) The universe exists
4) therefore, from premises 1 and 3: the universe has an explanation
5) therefore from 4 and 2:The explanation of the universe is God.


MagicAintReal

Con

Thanks for the response Pro.

The difference between "gods" and "god" is a letter...and implied quantity; demonstrating either the plural or the singular would actually affirm the resolution.

Unfortunately, according to Pro, the singular god is not physical or contingent on physical reality.

So, Pro provides a logical argument for the existence of god.

Pro's 1st premise:
"anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the neccesity of its own nature or in an external cause."

My response:
Explanations are human statements that make things clearer for us to understand.
I reject the premise that anything that exists has an explanation, because given the amount of stars in the observable universe, 10^22, there could be so many things that exist, that we have no knowledge of, thus we have no explanation for.
http://www.npr.org...

Pro claims that god is explained by the necessity of his own nature as the creator of the universe.
I have provided reasons for why we need no god/being/intelligence for our universe's origin [+0,-0]-->[+1,-1].

Pro continues:
"even in the quantum vacuum [1st premise] is the case, for the particles come into being by virtue of the qualities of empty space."

My response:
Nope, Pro has it exactly backwards.
At [+0,-0], empty space comes into being by virtue of the particles.
As the sub nuclear particles fluctuate in and our of existence, so does space; space is a variable that is contingent on matter, even if matter is not stative.

Pro's 2nd premise:
"If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God."

My response:
Nope.
I have provided, 1st round, an explanation for the universe that requires no god.

Therefore, based on false premises, Pro's conclusions can be rejected.

Pro has not provided any proof for god's existence, and Pro has not addressed any of my round 1 arguments about our universe's origins; Pro has simply asserted false premises, and misrepresented the relationship between quantum fluctuations and space.

I maintain a rejection of the resolution, because no god has been demonstrated.
Debate Round No. 3
Sunfire315

Pro

Sunfire315 forfeited this round.
MagicAintReal

Con

No demonstration, no god.
Thanks for the debate, I extend my previous arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by V5RED 1 year ago
V5RED
I retract part of what I wrote, we can't prove that gods don't exist, but we do typically believe that they do not because there is no evidence.
Posted by V5RED 1 year ago
V5RED
The reason atheists typically "shirk" the burden of proof with respect to gods is because the typical atheistic stance is not "gods do not exist", it is "we neither believe that gods exist nor do we believe that they do not exist".

You get the burden of proof because you are claiming that such a thing exists, so you must demonstrate this to be true.

Additionally, there is nothing atheists could ever do to fully disprove the possibility of any god. Christians just keep redefining god as soon as their current definition is refuted by what we learn. He has gone from a guy that literally walked around on earth to being something outside of time and space that is basically indistinguishable from something that does not exist. We flew past the "heavens", Christians redefined Heaven to be some kind of place outside of time and space. We proved that the creation story was a myth, Christians redefined it to allegory. We proved that the flood never happened, Christians redefined it to allegory. We have demonstrated how humans came into existence, Christians redefined God's creation to some kind of invisible tinkering. If we learned how to shift ourselves outside of time and space and did not find any gods, Christians would move god further out.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
Sunfire315MagicAintRealTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
Sunfire315MagicAintRealTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeits by Pro meaning that Con receives the conduct point. Since con was the only one to use sources and incorporate them into their argument, they receive the sources points. Due to the fact that Pro made multiple forfeitures this meant that they had less rounds to demonstrate their burden of proof. Con responded to Pro's arguments successfully in R3 and since Pro could not contest with this due to another forfeiture Con also receives the arguments points.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
Sunfire315MagicAintRealTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Multiple round forfeits by Pro; Conduct to Con. No significant S/G errors. Pro supplied but one argument, which was refuted, and not defended. Con's R2 arguments were pretty much uncontested; not much of a debate occurred, here. Arguments to Con. Pro drew absolutely no support from sources whereas Con put forth an array of solid sources; sources to Con.